SF-MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication requirements ('auth_user_id', 'auth_password') and the optional 'include_permissions' flag, but lacks critical behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, and parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool, though the 'Args' section is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does reasonably well. It explains parameters thoroughly and provides usage context. However, it lacks behavioral transparency details (e.g., safety, side effects) that would be important for a tool accessing user data. The output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides semantic explanations for all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section, clarifying their purposes (e.g., 'instance: The SuccessFactors instance/company ID', 'include_permissions: If True, also fetches permissions for each role'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all RBP roles assigned to a specific user.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('RBP roles'), and target ('specific user'). It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_user_permissions' by explaining this shows roles rather than resulting permissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'This tool complements get_user_permissions by showing which roles are assigned to a user, not just the resulting permissions.' This directly states when to use this tool versus the sibling alternative, offering clear comparative context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.